Do you want "scientific proof"?

reply to post by spav5

I thought at onetime that there was absolute truth..I mean if there is no absolute truth then THAT is the absolute truth ..right? Either way you win...no absolute truth = absolute truth.

I think it's cute the way you all were getting your [snip] handed to you, so you all decided to change your terms from "Truth" and "Proof" to "Absolute Truth"

It's so cute how you are attempting to move the goalpost to further your transparent aims.


Knowledge can be PROVEN.

The above statement is TRUE.


Go hawk your "Ignorance is strength" bull[snip] elsewhere.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by spav5

 

I thought at onetime that there was absolute truth..I mean if there is no absolute truth then THAT is the absolute truth ..right? Either way you win...no absolute truth = absolute truth.

I think it's cute the way you all were getting your [snip] handed to you, so you all decided to change your terms from "Truth" and "Proof" to "Absolute Truth"

It's so cute how you are attempting to move the goalpost to further your transparent aims.


Knowledge can be PROVEN.

The above statement is TRUE.


Go hawk your "Ignorance is strength" bull[snip] elsewhere.

True Ignorance is humbling..thinking you KNOW something is being cute.

Peace

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


listen, man. in case you haven't been paying attention, I have been arguing on your side of the Line for most of this thread. but something tells me you don't bother reading other peoples' posts.


so, WRT assurances about geometry as the fundamental symbolic logic, you can take that up with Plato and Pythagoras.

WRT the application of non eucladian geometry to Reality, you can take that up with Einstein. you know, that whole relativity thing....blahblahblah.


oh, wait....what is that? it appears that you ACTUALLY ARE speaking on topics you know nothing of. you probably had better stop speaking then, huh? especially because you have now reverted to shouting.

...notice the word "know" in that sentence?

yes, I am in fact saying that A does not equal A in a great many real contexts within our universe.


and, about the language/dictionary bit between you and the op, I say this: usage defines meaning. meaning does not define usage. we are not slaves to the dictionary.


like it or not, bro, you are not living in a right-angled reality.

reply to post by spav5

True Ignorance is humbling..thinking you KNOW something is being cute.

Do you see that picture?

Do you see the words written underneath "Above Top Secret"?

It says....

*DENY IGNORANCE*


Good *DAY* to you.

reply to post by tgidkp

listen, man. in case you haven't been paying attention, I have been arguing on your side of the Line for most of this thread. but something tells me you don't bother reading other peoples' posts.

You sure about that?

so, WRT assurances about geometry as the fundamental symbolic logic, you can take that up with Plato and Pythagoras.

You still have yet to actually Say anything substantial about your claim.

WRT the application of non eucladian geometry to Reality, you can take that up with Einstein. you know, that whole relativity thing....blahblahblah.

Again, you have yet to actually say anything substantial about your claim.

Appeals to authority will get you nowhere, I assure you.

oh, wait....what is that? it appears that you ACTUALLY ARE speaking on topics you know nothing of.

Would you care to explain your position, or are you just going to assert it without proof, or discussion like the rest of them?

you probably had better stop speaking then, huh?

No.

I rather think that you should stop speaking first, since you aren't actually SAYING anything.

especially because you have now reverted to shouting.

Oh, i'm sorry if my *TEXT* was too loud for you.... Maybe you should turn your "Volume" down, eh?

...notice the word "know" in that sentence?

Contrary to your assertion, I do read these little letter thingies.

yes, I am in fact saying that A does not equal A in a great many real contexts within our universe.

And you have yet to explain your position.

Merely appealing to authority without even the formality of stating WHY you think you are right.

and, about the language/dictionary bit between you and the op, I say this: usage defines meaning. meaning does not define usage. we are not slaves to the dictionary.

So, you are stating that the Dictionary (Which contains the definitions that are in common usage) is WRONG, but whatever YOU ASSERT is CORRECT?

That's a bit presumptuous, isn't it?

That the entire English speaking world is *WRONG* but you are Right?

Nice bit of arrogance there... and telling to boot.

like it or not, bro, you are not living in a right-angled reality.

You have yet to provide evidence to the contrary... while in THIS world, squares STILL have angles of 90 degrees.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by spav5

 

True Ignorance is humbling..thinking you KNOW something is being cute.

Do you see that picture?

Do you see the words written underneath "Above Top Secret"?

It says....

*DENY IGNORANCE*


Good *DAY* to you.

A penny saved is a penny earned...early worm gets eaten.

Have a good one.

Peace

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


either you really did come here to quarrel, or you got all riled up in the last several pages. either way, I think that this has gone quite far enough.

I appealed to authority only because you said that you do not accept assurances, in addition to the fact that I have no intention of expounding at length upon these complex issues. i have offered you a refutation of your "true" statement. if you are genuinely interested in understanding WHY my refutation is valid (although I had hoped, using a picture and all, that it would be obvious), the internet is free for your perusal.

if on the other hand you are interested only in further quarrel, good night to you as well.

We live in a consensus reality.
Things become true because we say so, collectively.

For ideas and concepts to become true, first they must be defined.
Science offers our most credible definitions because it focuses on that which can be measured.


I believe the point of the OP is this;

There are some ideas, concepts and experiences which cannot be measured. (Yet, or easily)
Therefore science cannot vouch for them.
Without the blessing of science, these ideas go undefined, or without consensus vocabulary


So even if some unmeasurable ideas may be conveyed and understood, they're lacking the endorsement of science.
This greatly inhibits them from becoming a part of our reality... No matter how real they are.


In that sense,
I think "Deny Ignorance" should mean being very careful about what you exclude from reality based on science.

reply to post by JRedBeard

We live in a consensus reality.
Things become true because we say so, collectively.

You are implying that organisms that are incapable of Sentient Thought cannot exist.

You are implying that prior to the 6th century BC, the world was a Flat Disc that you could sail off the edge of.

You are implying, that prior to the 6th century BC, the world was surrounded by a Crystal Sphere that held the stars.

You are implying that Prior to that time, the world was held above the "Deep" by an infinite tower of Turtles.

You are implying that The measurements that Nicholas Copernicus used to determine the FACT that the earth revolved around the sun, were actually WRONG, (Because most people believed that the earth was the centre of the universe), until his theory became widely accepted, at which time the Earth and the Sun SWITCHED PLACES, so that the earth revolved around the sun.
en.wikipedia.org...

Have a Nice Day.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Sure bud.

Nothing exists but in the human mind...The universe is a mirror of us, and we ARE responsible for our reality.
Sorry if that puts a bad taste in your mouth..

Just my opinion..
Hey it takes all types right?

Have a good evening

reply to post by JRedBeard

Nothing exists but in the human mind.

So, how did the human mind first come into existence, if the human mind creates reality?

The universe is a mirror of us

Nope.... Our perceptions of the universe are a mirror to Reality.

Sorry if that puts a bad taste in your mouth..

It would have to be substantial for me to taste it, so I wouldn't worry about that if I were you.

Just my opinion..

Yes, that is EXACTLY what it is.

Have a good evening

You too!

You're splitting hairs. Whether you want to call it proof or not, empirical data does lend credence or cast doubt or any tested theory, and justly so. Theories may change and supposed laws may be forgotten, but not without significant data collected through repetitious testing. This is a case of a rose by any other name.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Ok, lol, so how about if people say "show me scientific evidence/data supported by credible scientists/witnesses and multiple sources to lend some more weight/credibility to your story/claim" would that be better for you buddy? Seems like a lot to type to really get the same point across. Otherwise I'm not sure what your post is getting at, that we should just believe anything we read at face value as long as it sounds cool and calling for evidence ("proof") is stupid because of your silly semantics argument?

Who cares what word or phrase people use, and how you personally feel about it, the important thing is that the intelligent people on this site want more than just a cool sounding story or claim with nothing backing it up. They want data/evidence/credible sources etc. and that is what "deny ignorance" should be all about, not just blindly accepting any theory/story/claim just because it's not mainstream or fits in with their personal, and often overly paranoid (in the case of those who seem to think literally everything is a tptb conspiracy, supernatural or a ufo), world views.
to this thread

There's only one absolute truth I see happening in this thread...



... and that's the overwhelming stench of circular semantics flying around from every direction.

To me, scientific proof is an "instant water - just add water" idea. It is an instant science - just add science thing.

Putting proof into language more understandable, you can understand the idea of bullet proof, or idiot proof.

In that regard, could it be said that when something is scientific proof, is it impervious to scientific?

Or is the confusion in the word scientific, would the better word be science-based, or just science proof? This is a question for a linguist. But then would the answer be a linguistic proof and not a scientific one?

Sometimes I think that the smart alek that is demanding the proof is too lazy to get it himself, to think for himself; he wants to be spoon fed. What is he really asking for, an equation with Greek symbols and arrows to a conclusion? A photograph? A video? It's like asking, how is 2+2 equals 4? There is a way for a mathematic proof of that but not quite a scientific one. And even then, if you gave the proof, would the smart alek want more proof that the proof you gave is proof?

Proof is just a scientific word that means a lot like the word why. Why, the question that can be put on everything for eternity. Proof is one similar eternal torment from the stupid to the ones who think they know.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
Well, too bad. You'll never get it.

I have been seeing a lot of people during my time here, and specifically from this thread here lately, claim that they choose not to believe something because it lacks "scientific proof". It is really quite embarrassing too, because most of the people screaming for "proof!" are, what I would judge as, quite intelligent individuals.

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?

Proof can be defined in different ways. The terms in the dictionary are a bit ambiguous.

Something that's proven true, may later be proven false when there's more and better evidence. Such is the ambiguity of the word proof. It's not permanent, if that's your point. But to say nothing is ever proven ignores the dictionary.

For example, take the Higgs particle at CERN. It's considered not yet proven:

www.thehindu.com...

The ATLAS results are well above a standard deviation of 3 which is considered as evidence that a particular particle may exist.

A statistical significance of 5 standard deviations is considered as proof of a particle's existence.

So if and when there are 5 standard deviations of statistical evidence, that will be considered proof. That doesn't mean later, better evidence can't change it, but then that's not what proof means.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of PROOF
1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

Five standard deviations certainly meets that definition, as it is statistically quite compelling. But yes, even proven concepts are still falsifiable and impermanent. That doesn't mean they aren't proven, according to the dictionary.

The US Supreme Court defined science as "falsifiable", that's probably what you're trying to say. That's different than saying nothing is ever proven.

reply to post by Necrocharadon


I'd like to say that I highly regard your post as something that I relate to with the utmost regards. I joined just to give you kudos, kind individual.

Being a lurker of this thread I cannot help but to post the following quote from Hamlet.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet, Act I, Scene V

Everyone on here is arguing semantics. Really ruins what could have been a great thread

I appreciate the unique views overall in this thread. Though I may side with one more than the other, you all have expressed views that I wholeheartedly will use to look at many topics of interest from "both sides of the fence" more acutely. Thank you all. Keep up the great work!